Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Axil Axilhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Axil+Axil%22 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:34:20 -0800http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20131214 Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+reaction with 100% repeatability. Foks0904 . http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Foks0904+.%22 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:35:15 -0800 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20131214 ...take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
*Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.* No one has ever found a thing wrong with excess heat measurements. Where are your peer reviewed sources finding fault in excess heat measurements that have stood the test of time? As I've already pointed out, hopelessly naïve objections like yours have been answered several times over, most prior to 1994. Jones' and others objections over recombination: answered. Nathan Lewis' objection about uneven heat distribution in unstirred cells: answered. Others objections about stored chemical energy in the lattice that is released in bursts: answered. You appear dreadfully unfamiliar and ignorant of the history of this subject. The onus is now on you, and your community, to actually learn a damn thing about the nuances of electrochemistry and calorimetry, get into the lab, and find out what was actually wrong with the measurements, if anything. Its easier to be intellectually lazy and spout off that it can't be because there aren't enough neutrons or gammas than to actually do the lab work like scientists are supposed to do. The onus is on you to actually read the peer reviewed literature and answer these questions for yourself. Its not our responsibility on a casual forum to educate you about every bit of minutia just because you're either lazy, bigoted, or both. You are clearly the one not listening Mr. Franks. Maybe the reaction is nuclear maybe it isn't, but the excess heat level certainly is in that range and Helium-4 (in PdD systems atleast) has been demonstrated by China Lake, SRI, ENEA (amongst others) to be commensurate with the heat. There are logical reasons for coming to such a conclusion despite what you believe. You simply label such results as delusional, lies or incompetence. Your banter represents pseudoscientific ridicule at its best, and everything that is wrong with skepticism today. All the best to you. Regards. On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axilhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Axil+Axil%22 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:34:20 -0800http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20131214 Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+reaction with 100% repeatability. Foks0904 . http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Foks0904+.%22 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:35:15 -0800 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20131214 ...take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Hello John Please look at the very important video of the research done by A. de Ninno more then 10 years ago in which she confirmed that the excess heatrelease was related to 4He production. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0 Peter van Noorden - Original Message - From: John Franks To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency? Axil Axil Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:34:20 -0800 Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+reaction with 100% repeatability. Foks0904 . Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:35:15 -0800 ...take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
PJ, Yes thank you for the link. I have seen that before but hope others will check it out. It basically is a recounting of the ENEA research done over 3-4 years that I cited above, supported by a Nobel Laureate, and rejected a priori by the mainstream journals upon submission. Personally I think it is the best lab work done to date on the Excess Heat/He-4 correlation in PdD. Regards, John On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nlwrote: Hello John Please look at the very important video of the research done by A. de Ninno more then 10 years ago in which she confirmed that the excess heatrelease was related to 4He production. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0 Peter van Noorden - Original Message - *From:* John Franks jf27...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 15, 2013 3:00 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency? Axil Axilhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Axil+Axil%22 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:34:20 -0800http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20131214 Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+reaction with 100% repeatability. Foks0904 . http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Foks0904+.%22 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:35:15 -0800 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20131214 ...take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 6:00 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening. The discussion of objections here would be more effective if it were focused on the perceived flaws of specific experiments and approaches. There no doubt are many flaws in specific cases. But that situation does not establish the conclusions you're hoping to get to, because there also appear to be experiments that have been done that do not suffer from such flaws. Broad generalities are of little help here. Eric
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
*Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.* This reaction under discussion is a nuclear reaction centered on the action of light. It is NOT a chemical reaction. The questions that these experiments answer is can EMF produce a nuclear reaction? The discussion has nothing to do with chemistry as stated by Franks. As a baseline reaction in nuclear physics, it is universally accepted that gamma radiation can produce a nuclear reaction. In optical physics, laser light that contains enough power density can also produce a nuclear reaction. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-0-387-34756-1_62#page-1 Abstract. - Powerful tabletop lasers are now available in the laboratory and can be used to induce nuclear reactions. We report the first demonstration of nuclear fission using a high repetition rate tabletop laser with intensities of 10^^20W/cm2. Actinide photo-fission has been achieved in both 238U and 232Th from the high-energy bremsstrahlung radiation produced by laser acceleration of electrons. The fission products were identified by time-resolved γ-spectroscopy. The experiments that I referenced show that nanoparticles can amplify and concentrate the output power of a weak laser to a sufficiently high level to initiate a nuclear reaction. The question is not if light can produce a nuclear reaction, but can an amplification mechanism be engineered to use a very weak light source to produce a nuclear reaction. There have been Nanoplasmonic experiments that show that light can be amplified by a factor of 10 to the 15th power (one million billon times) using nanoantenna technology. I contend that the Ni/H reactor has exceeded that amplification factors to such a level the infrared energy can be concentrated to a level that it can induce nuclear reactions. It is not a matter of if EMF can induce a nuclear reaction, but how much amplification can be applied to support weak light based nuclear reactions. I resent being called a liar by an ignorant man. In a post that should have embarrassed him, I contend the Franks does not know anything in the field of photonics or nanotechnology and he is speaking from a position of profound and utter ignorance on these matters. I have given Franks a clue as to the fields you should bone up on. Let us hope he begins his reeducation. On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axilhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Axil+Axil%22 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:34:20 -0800http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20131214 Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+reaction with 100% repeatability. Foks0904 . http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Foks0904+.%22 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:35:15 -0800 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20131214 ...take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.
[Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Dear Vortex, What is Faraday Efficiency and might it be behind some of the mistaken claims of excess heat from LENR? And all this talk of imagination in other threads, relativistic electrons, the lattice somehow doing something, how is it possible to get two nucleons close enough for the strong force to take over? You can't get lower than the ground state and 0.1nm or so is a lot larger than the 0.1pm and less to get significant fusion. This shielding talk seems is bogus as is talk of other types of nuclear reactions that don't produce neutrons or gamma rays. Why can't you LENR people do one definitive experiment after all these years (going on 25) and 100s of millions of dollars? JF.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:28 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Vortex, What is Faraday Efficiency and might it be behind some of the mistaken claims of excess heat from LENR? And all this talk of imagination in other threads, relativistic electrons, the lattice somehow doing something, how is it possible to get two nucleons close enough for the strong force to take over? You can't get lower than the ground state and 0.1nm or so is a lot larger than the 0.1pm and less to get significant fusion. This shielding talk seems is bogus as is talk of other types of nuclear reactions that don't produce neutrons or gamma rays. Why can't you LENR people do one definitive experiment after all these years (going on 25) and 100s of millions of dollars? JF.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
*The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track.* Actually Axil, we don't know what it is. You're entitled to your interpretation but that's all it is. Not enough data exists to support your assertions no matter how well thought out they are. As to John Franks' antagonistic demands for a definitive experiment (presumably for evidence of excess heat), those demands had been met many times already by 1994 (McKubre, Storms, Oriani, Huggins, Arata, Bockris, etc.). If he had cared to look back on the history of the field + the archived technical papers he could have answered his own questions before coming in here for the most basic of information. Faraday efficiency has to do with recombination. Recombination has been ruled out many times over in LENR experiments. Mr. Franks, do you honestly think highly trained electrochemists did not understand that rudimentary recombination might be a factor worth ruling out early on? Even though progress has been made, we still don't know what the mechanism is. So what? Experiment is king in science, and it sometimes takes a generation or more to discover what the exact mechanism for a new phenomenon is. Discounting a discovery for the reason that it does not fit into current theory totally flips scientific protocol on its head and is an amateurish understanding of scientific method at best. We are dealing with a messy, complex, chemical system, not highly controllable 2 body nuclear interactions in a vacuum like most physicists are used to. Unreasonable demands for high repeatability make no sense for these types of complex, highly non-linear systems, especially in the early stages of development. Scientific history is full of such stubbornly unrepeatable cases that are nonetheless legitimate science (cloning a sheep for example). Significant progress in terms of repeatability has been made however; take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Mr. Franks I suggest you educate yourself more before storming in with nonsense arguments that are outdated by almost 20 years. Regards, John M On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:28 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Vortex, What is Faraday Efficiency and might it be behind some of the mistaken claims of excess heat from LENR? And all this talk of imagination in other threads, relativistic electrons, the lattice somehow doing something, how is it possible to get two nucleons close enough for the strong force to take over? You can't get lower than the ground state and 0.1nm or so is a lot larger than the 0.1pm and less to get significant fusion. This shielding talk seems is bogus as is talk of other types of nuclear reactions that don't produce neutrons or gamma rays. Why can't you LENR people do one definitive experiment after all these years (going on 25) and 100s of millions of dollars? JF.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+ reaction with 100% repeatability. These simple, straight forward, and uncomplicated experiments show that the Nanoplasmonic mechanism is unambiguously capable of producing nuclear reactions. I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974. An experiment not related to the E-Cat shows how light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order of the spin net liquid) can produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear effect. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf *Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt* It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission. Abstract Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 – 0.355 m were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 – 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed. Here is another paper: I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic underpinnings of LENR. Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in topology. These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track.* Actually Axil, we don't know what it is. You're entitled to your interpretation but that's all it is. Not enough data exists to support your assertions no matter how well thought out they are. As to John Franks' antagonistic demands for a definitive experiment (presumably for evidence of excess heat), those demands had been met many times already by 1994 (McKubre, Storms, Oriani, Huggins, Arata, Bockris, etc.). If he had cared to look back on the history of the field + the archived technical papers he could have answered his own questions before coming in here for the most basic of information. Faraday efficiency has to do with recombination. Recombination has been ruled out many times over in LENR experiments. Mr. Franks, do you honestly think highly trained electrochemists did not understand that rudimentary recombination might be a factor worth ruling out early on? Even though progress has been made, we still don't know what the mechanism is. So what? Experiment is king in science, and it sometimes takes a generation or more to discover what the exact mechanism for a new phenomenon is. Discounting a discovery for the reason that it does not fit into current theory totally flips scientific protocol on its head and is an amateurish understanding of scientific method at best. We are dealing with a messy, complex, chemical system, not highly controllable 2 body nuclear interactions in a vacuum like most physicists are used to. Unreasonable demands for high repeatability make no sense for these types of complex, highly non-linear systems, especially in the early stages of development. Scientific history is full of such stubbornly unrepeatable cases that are nonetheless legitimate science (cloning a sheep for example). Significant progress in terms of repeatability has been made however; take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Mr. Franks I suggest you educate yourself more before storming in with nonsense
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Steve? Steve Jones, is that you? - Jed
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
To be fair Jed, it is my understanding that Steve has now accepted excess heat, but still does not subscribe to a nuclear hypothesis. Obviously your point is that it was asinine for Jones to deny excess heat for so long, just as Mr. Franks is doing here (on top of making other silly proclamations). I agree, but think we need to be mindful of the disclaimer above. Regards, John On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Steve? Steve Jones, is that you? - Jed
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: To be fair Jed, it is my understanding that Steve has now accepted excess heat, but still does not subscribe to a nuclear hypothesis. The last I heard from him he said the heat is real but it is all caused by recombination. That was a long time ago. Maybe he has changed his mind. To add a serious comment: yes of course recombination was ruled out long ago, and no, people have not spent hundreds of millions on this research. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Jed, You might want to review his 2001 patent application: Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium condition - CA 2400084 A1 https://www.google.com/patents/CA2400084A1 - LP Jed Rothwell wrote: Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: To be fair Jed, it is my understanding that Steve has now accepted excess heat, but still does not subscribe to a nuclear hypothesis. The last I heard from him he said the heat is real but it is all caused by recombination. That was a long time ago. Maybe he has changed his mind. To add a serious comment: yes of course recombination was ruled out long ago, and no, people have not spent hundreds of millions on this research. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Axil, A good reference. It lead me to a couple other related papers: Nuclear processes initiated by electrons http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0036024413060277 (Click on 'Look Inside icon for first two pages.) Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf -- LP Axil wrote: Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+ reaction with 100% repeatability. These simple, straight forward, and uncomplicated experiments show that the Nanoplasmonic mechanism is unambiguously capable of producing nuclear reactions. I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974. An experiment not related to the E-Cat shows how light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order of the spin net liquid) can produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear effect. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf *Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt* It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission. Abstract Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 â 0.355 ïm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 â 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed. Here is another paper: I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic underpinnings of LENR. Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in topology. These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track.* Actually Axil, we don't know what it is. You're entitled to your interpretation but that's all it is. Not enough data exists to support your assertions no matter how well thought out they are. As to John Franks' antagonistic demands for a definitive experiment (presumably for evidence of excess heat), those demands had been met many times already by 1994 (McKubre, Storms, Oriani, Huggins, Arata, Bockris, etc.). If he had cared to look back on the history of the field + the archived technical papers he could have answered his own questions before coming in here for the most basic of information. Faraday efficiency has to do with recombination. Recombination has been ruled out many times over in LENR experiments. Mr. Franks, do you honestly think highly trained electrochemists did not understand that rudimentary recombination might be a factor worth ruling out early on? Even though progress has been made, we still don't know what the mechanism is. So what? Experiment is king in science, and it sometimes takes a generation or more to discover what the exact mechanism for a new phenomenon is. Discounting a discovery for the reason that it does not fit into current theory totally flips scientific protocol on its head and is an amateurish understanding of scientific method at best. We are dealing with a messy, complex, chemical system, not highly controllable 2 body nuclear interactions in a vacuum like most physicists are used to. Unreasonable demands for high repeatability make no sense for these types of complex, highly non-linear
